“A man who feels it is his duty at such an hour to assume the leadership of the folk is not responsible to the laws of parliamentary usage or a particular democratic conception, but solely to the mission placed upon him. And anyone who interferes with this mission is an enemy of the folk.” – Adolf Hitler

The authentic National Socialist must be an openly avowed enemy of democracy (“The German democracy of November, 1918 signified the victory of the dirtiest racketeering idea which the world had ever seen.” – Alfred Rosenberg), and should attempt to build the reputation of National Socialism as most immediately an anti-democratic (and hence necessarily anti-Western) ideology. While it is true that the NSDAP, following the failed 1923 Beer Hall Putsch, switched to participating in electoral politics until becoming the elected government in 1933, immediately following this victory Hitler banned all other political parties in National Socialist Germany in accordance with Fuehrerprinzip. Therefore the one-time participation by the NSDAP in electoral politics cannot be taken as any kind of endorsement of democracy by National Socialism. Joseph Goebbels summarizes their attitude: “We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and salaries for this bear’s work, that is its affair. We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come as enemies.”

Democracy has been recognized by political radicals of all camps throughout history as one of the worst forms of long-term government. In this we do not distinguish between direct democracy and representative democracy, in Hitler’s words: “Everybody who properly estimates the political intelligence of the masses can easily see that this is not sufficiently developed to enable them to form general political judgments on their own account, or to select the men who might be competent to carry out their ideas in practice.” This radical criticism of democracy, National Socialist or otherwise, is not to be confused with superficial skepticism towards democratic systems based on (actually democratic) concerns such as vote fraud, or elected governments often enjoying low popular support, or elected governments often failing to keep their election promises, or even the extreme ease with which elected governments are subverted (e.g. by Zionist agents). As radicals, we distrust not the ability of elections to represent the will of the electorate, but rather we distrust the will of the electorate itself.

This is how a democrat thinks.

Firstly and most obviously, democracy is practically an open invitation for national division, as it prompts the various sections of society to vote against one another in an attempt to each secure a bigger slice of a pie of benefits for itself, and thus to perceive one another as rivals rather than as fellow citizens all in this mess together and who must all work together to get out of it. Democracy is a breeding ground for identity politics and mutual blame for all problems, and is thus in every way antithetical to national unity and to the folkish spirit.

Secondly and more importantly, democracy by definition is government by majority opinion, which is never the best informed or most intelligent – let alone the kindest or noblest – opinion. Democracy is empowerment of quantity over quality, of fecundity over idealism, and – from our perspective – almost always of non-Aryan values over Aryan values. (This is true irrespective of the average quality of the population: no matter what quality the population as a whole, the best opinions will always come from the most superior fraction within it, which will always be a minority. The only difference made by average quality is that a higher-quality population is more likely to accept this fact, and thus more likely to reject democracy.)

“Nations must decide. Either they want majorities or brains. The two are never compatible.” – Adolf Hitler

This is how we think. (Except we would say that the masses are not just ignorant, but barbaric.)

Furthermore, the crimes of democracies are rarely punished, as it is difficult to punish an entire voter bloc, so that democracies have far less practical disincentive to evil than any dictatorship whose dictator can be pinpointed for account. Hitler describes: “This new invention of democracy is very closely connected with a peculiar phenomenon which has recently spread to a pernicious extent, namely the cowardice of a large section of our so-called political leaders. Whenever important decisions have to be made they always find themselves fortunate in being able to hide behind the backs of what they call the majority. In observing one of these political manipulators one notices how he wheedles the majority in order to get their sanction for whatever action he takes. He has to have accomplices in order to be able to shift responsibility to other shoulders whenever it is opportune to do so.” When majority opinion – in itself already a socially persuasive force – is further given political authority, it acquires an illusion of moral rectitude, meaning that democratic nations can rarely be brought to even admit collective guilt for evils they have perpetrated. (Voters will at most blame the representative they themselves elected, while retaining unshakeable confidence in their collective ability to wisely elect his replacement.)

Thus we must avoid anti-democratic arguments of the form: “Democracy would be good if it worked, unfortunately it can’t work.” No, a properly functional democracy would produce worse government than a dysfunctional democracy! Democracy is majority tyranny, plain and simple – not just an operational abhorrence, but a moral abhorrence.

Plato vs Aristotle

Those who have rejected democracy on this account are often quick to promote the benefits of aristocracy ie. government by the superior minority over the inferior majority. As National Socialists, we are the first to admit the advantages of aristocracy over democracy. Such a form of government resonates with our conviction that better governance is achieved by finding higher-quality people for office, not by bulking up the system to resist abuse by low-quality people, be it through constitutionalism, terms of office or other so-called “checks and balances”.

“The conscience of a moral personality is far greater protection against the misuse of office than supervision of parliament or separation of powers.” – Rudolf Hess

It is worth emphasizing that National Socialist preference for aristocracy over democracy does not derive from right-wing paternalism along the neoreactionary lines of: “The masses don’t know what’s good for themselves.” Our criticism, which is a left-wing criticism, is that the masses think solely about what’s good for themselves, thereby crippling all regard for ethics in democratic politics. Only the few – the rare Aryan individuals – even try to make ethical decisions in their personal lives, and so it is by putting such individuals into aristocracy that ethics have any chance of being considered in politics. This is especially the case regarding foreign relations in an impending era of resource shortages, where we have greater need than ever for leaders able to resist what will become an increasingly strong temptation for each nation to treat others without empathy in order to benefit itself. Such leaders, however, are the ones who will find it hardest to win elections, as the masses are more likely to elect leaders who work in their own interests at the expense of others.

“Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in political life; because under these circumstances the situation does not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract them accordingly.” – Adolf Hitler

Ultimately, however, we reject permanent aristocracy using the same reasoning by which aristocrats reject democracy. If a democratic state invites malicious subversion sooner or later, does not an aristocratic state also invite massed rebellion sooner or later? If the majority is unqualified to decide even the relatively inconsequential phenomenon of short-term policy, can the majority possibly be qualified to determine – via their reproduction - the destiny-bound phenomenon of long-term heritability? If it makes sense for a nation to be governed only by the superior, does it not make better sense for a nation to be populated only by the superior? We suspect that aristocrats and supporters of caste systems are people who enjoy coexistence with the inferior so that their own superiority is conspicuous in comparison, which we consider an ignoble attitude in itself. We accept aristocracy only as a medium-term plan, and then only as a means to remove the necessity for its own existence. True nobility necessarily implies the quest to phase out ignobility.

“Nobility will no longer be a feature of a caste constituting a horizontal social layer, but will pass vertically through all the ranks of the folk.” – Alfred Rosenberg

On the role of leadership, we reject the premise (arising from implicit democratic thinking) that a leader’s principal skill should be the ability to solve whatever problems the masses throw at him. Not only do we consider the majority unqualified to select good leaders, but we more strongly consider the majority unqualified to identify what the important problems are. Most people tend to magnify problems that affect their own group (be it gender, ethnicity, class, religion, or other category) and disregard problems that affect other groups. Very few are capable of fairness. The attempt by a selfish majority to impose its demands on a leader who is trying his best to be fair to everyone should be referred to as mutiny. (Treason in National Socialism is synonymous with mutiny; the notion (mainly spread by the present-day identitarian far-right) that a leader can somehow be “treasonous” to the populace is an utterly democratic notion which makes no sense in National Socialism.)

Experts are the people required to have problem-solving skills, and those to whom a leader should be able to delegate problems. The principal skill of a leader should be the ability to perceive problems, especially problems that most people are either too insensitive to identify, or too slavish to refuse to tolerate, thereby being in a position to put the experts to purposeful work. A leader is not a steward. His task is not to manage the people, but genuinely to lead them. In order to lead the people, there must be a destination to lead them towards. Therefore a nation has merely stewards, not leaders. Only a folk can have leaders.

“As Aryans, we can consider the state only as the living organism of a people which does not merely maintain the existence of the people, but functions so as to lead the people to a position of supreme freedom.” – Adolf Hitler

In other words, genuine leadership must be preceded by purpose. Thus National Socialist government is purposeful government. Such a government will only find support from those among the governed who sincerely share our purpose. Thus National Socialist government is folkish government. And above all, the only purpose valuable to us is freedom. Thus National Socialist government is noble government. Some may compare it to theocracy, yet is not contingent upon any metaphysical beliefs at all (nor otherwise exclusive to any particular religious system). Instead, it is simply UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY.

“We aim at this – that the highest of people would rather be the lowest in our nation, than the highest of any other nation. Such an aspiration can only be the outcome of an absolutely unified national will.” – Joseph Goebbels

The practical structure of such a government would be a form of absolute dictatorship best described as military rule over a nation without civilians - all citizens are regarded as troops, and as such have a duty to voice their ideas in a centrally adjudicated strategic discussion. A single leader would evaluate all proposed ideas – popular or unpopular – and make decisions, whose outcomes - successful or unsuccessful in relation to the mission - will reflect on his ability to lead, with a transparency that cannot be disguised. This is in fact simply the system already used in countless non-political professions. At the medical operating table, one surgeon makes all decisions for the entire duration of surgery. On a movie set, the entire cast and crew understand that they are there to manifest the vision of the director. On a ship in transit, everyone follows the captain’s orders. In Hitler’s words: “A competent man always has the authority he needs. A man who is not superior by his talent invariably lacks authority, whatever his job may be.” Whereas if these professions required voting before each action, the patient would bleed to death, the movie production would never get off the ground due to artistic disagreements and the ship would have crashed and sunken long ago.

“Our nation has the good fortune today to be led largely by front soldiers, by front soldiers who carried the virtues of the front to the leadership of the state.” – Rudolf Hess

This differs from aristocracy in that whereas aristocracy discourages non-aristocrats from involvement in political discussion, the National Socialist state encourages all citizens to actively participate in this discussion, and gives them a chance to be heard. Hitler explicitly emphasizes: “Above all, we must not allow our élite to become an exclusive society.” But it differs from democracy in that, while all citizens can participate in this discussion, the popularity of any person’s ideas means nothing. National Socialism, which is profoundly based on exalting - and providing with opportunity - the individual personality regardless of background, must never be misinterpreted as being opposed to free speech; what National Socialism opposes is majority decree, which works against the individual personality. The notion that the leader is somehow morally obliged to follow popular opinion in policymaking (or else be branded as undeserving of his position of power) is an implicitly democratic notion. In National Socialism, the leader has a duty not to use his position of power to benefit himself or his own kin/clan at the expense of others, but otherwise the leader is expected to do what he believes to be best no matter how unpopular it might be among the people.

A democratic government which counts on majority support has every reason to be willing to oppress a minority for the gain of the majority; a National Socialist government will not pander to any particular section of society, but will be committed as a matter of principle to the fair treatment of all. As Hitler declares: “Our victory was a mathematical certainty, for, unlike Social Democracy, we rejected nobody from the national community.” No government – whatever its form – which oppresses any section of society for the benefit of another section deserves to call itself National Socialist, and we will refuse to recognize any such government as an example of authentic National Socialism.

Ultimately, in a National Socialist state, soldiers are not loyal to officers, and officers are not loyal to commanders; all are loyal to the mission only, and are reminded that it is solely for the sake of completing this mission that the state, and indeed the nation itself, has any reason to exist at all.